Member Info for adoubleuk

daltry,

Yes. Some years ago, at a wild party in Pointe-Noire, Congo.

daltry,

Ah. But have you ever thrown Grace Kelly in a swimming pool?

" that would be considered inappropriate"

Lateral thinking at work, but I've just had another (completely unbidden) thought which may also be considered inappropriate. I hope this BB's moderators won't pounce on me for airing it.

But it's suddenly occurred to me that the staff of 'The Stag on the River' at Lower Eashing are going to miss Alistair Stobie's presence there. Seemingly they held him in high regard.

robhardcastle,

" Maybe they didn't take as much as the price they are getting is low and they expect an increase and have the capacity to store some"

I note this is your first post here. Welcome aboard!

Your idea is a novel one, and something which never even occurred to me! But it does have a rather neat kind of logic to it! Ithink it enters the category the Mythbusters would call 'plausible', and not 'impossible'. In fact it would bring a huge grin to my face if proved correct. Dr T does have a sense of humour, and it might even explain AS jumping ship...

Londoner7,

Seems like now it was yourself and I writing at the same time!

johnpwh,

" that would be considered inappropriate"

Maybe not by Johnny Depp, if the newspaper coverage of his legal action is correct.

I've been wondering again about this 'light cargo' on the tanker. Obviously yesterday's news about the CFO's departure is another pause for thought, but it can only be speculative, and I don't think we'll find the reasoning for it easily. Whereas the offload is an operational thing, where a bit of logical thinking might bring one close to an answer.

In fact I was on the phone last night with someone else who's preoccupied with the conundrum, and it's a puzzler, for sure. And despite the call (s) being quite long, we could draw no conclusions.

But now, I feel one of those 'instinctive feelings', and I'm trying to pick holes in my own argument, but finding it hard to.

The cargo load is something around 360,000 bbl. Which is very odd. Is that all the fpso had in her tanks? I don't think so. Because that would imply two things. (1) that the wells have been producing significantly less than 'guidance' over the last month. but the company have not given any indication to that effect, whereas they said they would if that happened. (2) that the tanker was called out prematurely, 360,000 bbl being much less than the optimum 'offload parcel size', and also far less than both the AM's storage capacity and the tanker's transport capability.

So, I'm inescapably drawn towards the idea that this was just a 'partial offload'. Now as 'Londoner7' has pointed out, the tanker was by the fpso for 23 hours, compared with the more usual 25. But the volume differences aren't proportional to the time difference. But again, that's just a couple of hours. So I think we can eliminate some pressing tanker scheduling from the equation. They're not going to take a partial load instead of a full one just for the sake of a few hours. Also, from someone else here (Pisces, I think), we've learned that the weather was pretty good, so if we can believe his information, we can discount a weather-related issue.

So, my feeling is that there was some sort of technical problem with the offload. That sort of thing can happen. A pump going down, some sort of hassle with the hose equipment, could be anything. Wouldn't like to guess. Could be the tanker's dynamic positioning catching coronavirus and unable to keep them properly on station, so far as I know. But some sort of technical glitch preventing a full offload.

Does anyone else here see a fault in my reasoning?

Of course, and before people start calling me a 'superramper' (and no, I bear absolutely no physical resemblence to Adolf Hitler!), I cannot 100% discount the possibility that the field has somehow 'underperformed' over the last month and the company hasn't informed us as they said they would. Even if it would go against the two points I enumerated above, and would shake my confidence as a shareholder considerably. But I do feel that the AM's probably still got a good amount of oil in her tanks, and as Cebo said, we may see another offload fairly shortly, like in the next couple of weeks.

Over to the res

And again !!!!!!!!!!!

fandg2,

We were obviously writing at the same time. Not only did I get the date wrong by a couple of days, but also I'd forgotten that it was Missdosh who posted the link, and not myself.

A bit absentminded on my part, but I'm led to believe occasional absentmindedness is another symptom of genius.

bartlebobton,

"Asking for a simple link, to the official document put out by the harbourmaster's office at the tanker offload terminal, you can't provide; you try to weasel your way out by suggesting I use Google, genius. "

What flattery, referring to me as a genius. Sometimes I like to think I am, but modesty prevents me from advertising the fact.

OK, if you're too thick or lazy to do some simple google research, try this, which is slightly easier. The relevant link was posted on this BB by 'missdosh' on the 24th December. I'm not going to post it here again. Especially as you'll probably act like Dspp and deliberately ignore its existence, anyway.

bartlebobton,

I've just re-read your message.

".if you have an official doc....upload it to; Mega, Dropbox or any cloud storage provider, then we can all take a peek...."

Don't you know how to use google?

What the heck are 'Mega' and 'Dropbox'? Whatever they are, I'd avoid 'em on basic principles.

Have fun on facebook. Google my facebook page, and surprise surprise, you'll find nothing, 'cos I don't have one.

etc...

bartlebobton,

"Aduk....if you have an official doc....upload it to; Mega, Dropbox or any cloud storage provider, then we can all take a peek....Bet you don’t......"

A guaranteed lost bet.

DYOR

Or go back through my posting history, sometime around 22nd December, and you'll find the link as you're obviously too lazy to do the google search.

I'll leave it at that. But if you're not prepared to do some legwork, I ain't going to do it for you.

slipanchor,

"I don't know what API and SG the calculator uses so your figures could be the more accurate of the two."

You're kind, but I don't claim 'complete accuracy' in this respect. Both our figures are in the same ballpark, and that's all that counts.

Rangers1

"Re Stobie - Lots of specials to the reason. Will we find out? I have been wondering for a while whether the Spirit partnership wasn't a tad hastie. I remember at the time an interview? stating it was a chance meeting at an airport in July with the deal done in September. I cannot remember if this was Trice, Stobie or the Spirit CEO who explained this. If Stobie, then this maybe a reason for his apparent demise, given the partnership, as I've said before, isn't exactly flourishing given the results reported and how the SP has moved as a result. Maybe someone else remembers the interview and is able to comment."

And this is of course the important 'topic' of the day, although it appears to have been sidestepped by many posters.

I don't remember the interview to which you refer (anyone got a link?) but certainly do recall DR T saying (at the last CMD?) that the 'Spirit deal' came as something of a 'surprise', but yet again, can't recall if it was actually the CMD or some other time.

Btw, I've just re-watched that video clip with amusement. And notice that it's myself cast in the Hitler role. And whoever made it has got something wildly wrong. My 'average' being 45p per share? Try 17.5, instead.

LtCaptain,

"18 hours x 33,000 bbls = 594,000 bbls

Yes i understand this is a very rough and crude way to calculate the offload, but it's theoretically possible. "

Very glad to see you 'qualifed' your calculation as you did. Much as I'd like to believe the offload volume you've arrived at, I can still only properly believe the figure published by the offload terminal site, which is no doubt based on a figure sent to them by the vessel's Master. If the captain of the boat doesn't know how much cargo he's carrying, the world has suddenly become madder than it already appears to be.

slipanchor,

"Used the MT to barrels calculator."

Yes, me too, or rather just the 'rule of thumb' one inscribed in my memory. Divide metric tonnes by 25 and multiply the result by 173. Of course this doesn't take things like API degrees and SG into account.

The point is, our different results only differ than by less than 1%. So no problem, mate. We're not bank-clerks! :-))

Rangers1,

"YouTube Video - Decent production using an old clip. Clearly someone with time on their hands and the ability or has access to someone who has. A previous poster maybe? ADUK, who calls you AK?"

Not guilty. Quite honestly, I wouldn't know how to 'subtitle' a film clip and post it on youtube. But I've been thinking about the thing and who it originated from, and reckon I do know of a couple of 'previous posters' here with both that ability, and also maybe the motivation. And who also may sometimes address me as 'AK'.

I found the clip hilarious, and a tip of the hardhat to whoever was responsible. The 'tip' of said thing being directly on the top of their (probably bald and unprotected) head, just on basic principles.

Yrs from the bunker,

adoubleuk

bartlebobton,

"Let's do something radical; ditch the guess work and wait for the facts. Two to three offloads ago, how far out...tutt tutt...."

Yet more idiocy. For the last offload to Germany your pal Dspp on TLF got the figure wildly wrong (about 200,000 bbl short), and even having been pointed in the direction of the real figure, refused to admit to having made a mistake. And also didn't retract his absurd hypothesis that maybe it went to Germany rather than Holland to 'cover up' a large proportion of the cargo was water. Which of course it wasn't.

Your choice. You can wait for the OGA figures (3 months in arrears), you can believe a number pulled out of the hat by a poster on a notoriously 'deramper' website, or you can believe an official document put out by the harbourmaster's office at the tanker offload terminal...

I know which one I believe.

slipanchor,

Thanks for the backup! I rounded the volume off at about 355,000 bbl, but it all depends on what calcs one uses. Same ballpark, though, and a minor detail.

bartlebobton,

"ADUK... what's this, more news from the serveur de bar ?

No. Check the tanker's destination, then do a google search using the name of that place. With a bit of patience you'll find a document showing the cargo tonnage. I'm not going to do that work for you.